I have a theory

[sleek]

So a buddy of mine and I were talking a few years back about what the ideal stave would be like. We kinda settled in in one that was naturally deflexed handle and reflexed limbs. Ring structure would allow for there to be a solid thick ring on the back, thin rings with lots of early wood in the middle to dop mass, and a thick solid ring for the belly.

Well I got one and im wondering about it. Would the pithy early wood thats concentrated in the middle likely cause failure in sheer? Should I try to get that early wood dead center of the bow, more towards the back or more towards the belly? I dont have to have the early wood in there at all, I can chase a few rings and stay above it or go below it. I just dont wanna miss an opportunity that will probably never come again.

[sleek]

Here's the lay out I have in mind. As you can see I have 2 rings to choose for the back that will adjust where in the bow that early wood is.

[Bubbabowyer]

I'm not sure there sleek. I think I would put that soft stuff towards the back and have at least two solid rings for the belly. Providing the back is flawless, anyway. I have noticed that most of my faster bows are of super dense osage that can be made quite narrow. I feel that that is where the real weight/strength ratio lies.

[Pat B]

I'd go with the first ring or 2 under the sapwood and not worry about the rest.

[DC]

If you go with Pat there are two bows in there aren't there? Cheap old Don chimes in .
In order to choose the rings for the belly AND back your draw weight would be a crap shoot wouldn't it?

[Hawkdancer]

Got to agree with COD, looks like you could get 2 bows from that stave!  Don't have enough skill to comment further!
Hawkdancer

[bjrogg]

If you go with Pat there are two bows in there aren't there? Cheap old Don chimes in .
In order to choose the rings for the belly AND back your draw weight would be a crap shoot wouldn't it?

That was my original thought. I really can’t help you with your theory. I usually just go to one of the closest rings and use it. If I think I can split off a belly split I often try it.

You might be right about your theory. Or not. I have know idea about that one. Sorry not much help.

Bjrogg

[willie]

constructing a lam bow with your density theory might have some merit but hoping all the stars align correctly in the finished bow from a natural stave seems dicey.
does your design call for a thickness taper?

[sleek]

DC, I plan on side tillering... It won't be too much of a crap shoot, im pretty familiar with my design. I should be able to get plenty close.

Willie, it does use a slight thickness taper, but not throughout the entire bow, only part of it.

[DC]

Never thought of side tillering. I've never done that for a whole bow. sounds interesting.

[TimBo]

I think you should still pop off a belly split...those bottom rings look nice. 

[bradsmith2010]

only one way to know,, make the bow,, 

[dylanholderman]

I think that I would fallow the ring you want down the side of the stage and to the other end to see if the rings are consistent down the whole thing.
I’ve built a one piece selfbow before that had half again as many rings on one limb vs the other.

[sleek]

I think that I would fallow the ring you want down the side of the stage and to the other end to see if the rings are consistent down the whole thing.
I’ve built a one piece selfbow before that had half again as many rings on one limb vs the other.

Good advice. I cleaned up both sides of the end of the stave and the rings are fairly consistent,  but do change some.

[bownarra]

Interesting challenge BUT it won't make any difference.
Some of my very best osage bows have been from paper thin ringed wood.
I really don't think the high proportion of early wood staves are in the least inferior.